Re: Bible Conflicts with Science



 Religions > Atheism > Re: Bible Conflicts with Science

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: ""
Date: 26 Jul 2005 10:39:23 AM
Object: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science
Christian wrote:


All practical atheists become alcoholics as they age and realize that
their existence is terminal per their world view.

very harsh. Carol is a drunk and an atheist. You gotta wonder.


It is wonderful living a hopeful life with purpose called faith. The
Christian faith is also coupled with facts.

http://www.icr.org

can you mention a few?


http://www.truthandgrace.com/Bible.htm

.

User: "Bill"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 26 Jul 2005 01:57:44 PM
<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...



Christian wrote:


All practical atheists become alcoholics as they age and realize that
their existence is terminal per their world view.

This quite obviouslly is a narrow minded, poorly informed bigot.
For example, I am 81 years old, am an atheist, have lived a full and
pleasant life.
I am not, and have never been, an alcoholic.
I just base my beliefs on objective varifiable and reproducible evidence
instead of ancient
copies of myths and impossible unvarifiable tales that only an idiot would
believe.
very harsh. Carol is a drunk and an atheist. You gotta wonder.




It is wonderful living a hopeful life with purpose called faith. The
Christian faith is also coupled with facts.

http://www.icr.org



can you mention a few?


http://www.truthandgrace.com/Bible.htm


.
User: "Cracklin"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 26 Jul 2005 02:39:15 PM
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hFvFe.1748$G71.224@bignews3.bellsouth.net...


<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...



Christian wrote:


All practical atheists become alcoholics as they age and realize that
their existence is terminal per their world view.


This quite obviouslly is a narrow minded, poorly informed bigot.

For example, I am 81 years old, am an atheist, have lived a full and
pleasant life.
I am not, and have never been, an alcoholic.

I just base my beliefs on objective varifiable and reproducible evidence
instead of ancient
copies of myths and impossible unvarifiable tales that only an idiot would
believe.

very harsh. Carol is a drunk and an atheist. You gotta wonder.

============================
What can you expect from someone (iksgorkin is Jabriol - check Google)
trying to silence someone exposing their quasi-religious cult? I'm
agnostic, not an atheist. When I see this god I'll believe. BTW, I never
drank either. It's a waste of good hard earned cash. :-))
Actually I love diet Pepsi, orange juice and coffee. It's about all I ever
drank.
--
CR...... aka Carol
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson
=============================
http://www.jwfiles.com/index.htm
.
User: "Reel MCkoI"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 26 Jul 2005 02:53:09 PM
Cracklin' wrote:


"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hFvFe.1748$G71.224@bignews3.bellsouth.net...


<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...



Christian wrote:


All practical atheists become alcoholics as they age and realize that
their existence is terminal per their world view.



This quite obviouslly is a narrow minded, poorly informed bigot.

For example, I am 81 years old, am an atheist, have lived a full and
pleasant life.
I am not, and have never been, an alcoholic.

I just base my beliefs on objective varifiable and reproducible
evidence instead of ancient
copies of myths and impossible unvarifiable tales that only an idiot
would believe.

very harsh. Carol is a drunk and an atheist. You gotta wonder.


============================
What can you expect from someone (iksgorkin is Jabriol - check Google)
trying to silence someone exposing their quasi-religious cult? I'm
agnostic, not an atheist.

Agnostic and Atheism, same thing
.


User: ""

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 28 Jul 2005 02:53:27 PM
In article <hFvFe.1748$G71.224@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
wmech@bellsouth.net says...

Subject: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science
From: Bill <wmech@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:57:44 -0400
Newsgroups: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.atheism, rec.ponds, alt.free.newsservers, talk.religion.misc
Message-ID: <hFvFe.1748$G71.224@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
References: <FRQO9EVC38559.2538773148@anonymous.poster> <1122390705.798709.19020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>


<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...



Christian wrote:


All practical atheists become alcoholics as they age and realize that
their existence is terminal per their world view.


This quite obviouslly is a narrow minded, poorly informed bigot.

For example, I am 81 years old, am an atheist, have lived a full and
pleasant life.
I am not, and have never been, an alcoholic.

I just base my beliefs on objective varifiable and reproducible evidence
instead of ancient
copies of myths and impossible unvarifiable tales that only an idiot would
believe.

A shame to know that. however you are still alive and therefore there is
still hope for you, but YOU have to see the light of God and repent, and
at 81 I'm certain that you have a lot to repent for. I'm only 41 and I
sure had a lot to repent for.
I sincerely pray that you make peace with God before you have to stand
before Him in judgement. I've studied enough scripture to know that is a
horrible fate. Much rather I would hear from Him "Well done thou good
and faithful servant" As it is, unless you change your stated position
of athiesm, you will hear "Depart from me ye that work iniquity, into the
lake that burns with molten sulfer which was prepared for the devil and
his followers."
If you're breathing and able to think, then it's not too late yet.
.
User: "thomas p"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 29 Jul 2005 05:11:49 PM
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:53:27 -0500, <none@none.invalid> wrote:

In article <hFvFe.1748$G71.224@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
wmech@bellsouth.net says...

Subject: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science
From: Bill <wmech@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:57:44 -0400
Newsgroups: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.atheism, rec.ponds, alt.free.newsservers, talk.religion.misc
Message-ID: <hFvFe.1748$G71.224@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
References: <FRQO9EVC38559.2538773148@anonymous.poster> <1122390705.798709.19020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>


<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...



Christian wrote:


All practical atheists become alcoholics as they age and realize that
their existence is terminal per their world view.


This quite obviouslly is a narrow minded, poorly informed bigot.

For example, I am 81 years old, am an atheist, have lived a full and
pleasant life.
I am not, and have never been, an alcoholic.

I just base my beliefs on objective varifiable and reproducible evidence
instead of ancient
copies of myths and impossible unvarifiable tales that only an idiot would
believe.


A shame to know that. however you are still alive and therefore there is
still hope for you, but YOU have to see the light of God and repent, and
at 81 I'm certain that you have a lot to repent for. I'm only 41 and I
sure had a lot to repent for.

Lying about atheists for example, yet you still do it.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 28 Jul 2005 04:50:36 PM
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:53:27 -0500, <none@none.invalid> wrote:

In article <hFvFe.1748$G71.224@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
wmech@bellsouth.net says...

Subject: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science
From: Bill <wmech@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:57:44 -0400
Newsgroups: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.atheism, rec.ponds, alt.free.newsservers, talk.religion.misc
Message-ID: <hFvFe.1748$G71.224@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
References: <FRQO9EVC38559.2538773148@anonymous.poster> <1122390705.798709.19020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>


<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...



Christian wrote:


All practical atheists become alcoholics as they age and realize that
their existence is terminal per their world view.


This quite obviouslly is a narrow minded, poorly informed bigot.

For example, I am 81 years old, am an atheist, have lived a full and
pleasant life.
I am not, and have never been, an alcoholic.

I just base my beliefs on objective varifiable and reproducible evidence
instead of ancient
copies of myths and impossible unvarifiable tales that only an idiot would
believe.


A shame to know that. however you are still alive and therefore there is
still hope for you, but YOU have to see the light of God and repent, and
at 81 I'm certain that you have a lot to repent for. I'm only 41 and I
sure had a lot to repent for.

Idiot.
.

User: "goozlefotz"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 30 Jul 2005 03:20:47 PM
none@none.invalid wrote:

In article <hFvFe.1748$G71.224@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
wmech@bellsouth.net says...

Subject: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science
From: Bill <wmech@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:57:44 -0400
Newsgroups: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.atheism, rec.ponds, alt.free.newsservers, talk.religion.misc
Message-ID: <hFvFe.1748$G71.224@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
References: <FRQO9EVC38559.2538773148@anonymous.poster> <1122390705.798709.19020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>


<iksgorkon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122392363.364735.283060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...



Christian wrote:


All practical atheists become alcoholics as they age and realize that
their existence is terminal per their world view.


This quite obviouslly is a narrow minded, poorly informed bigot.

For example, I am 81 years old, am an atheist, have lived a full and
pleasant life.
I am not, and have never been, an alcoholic.

I just base my beliefs on objective varifiable and reproducible evidence
instead of ancient
copies of myths and impossible unvarifiable tales that only an idiot would
believe.


A shame to know that. however you are still alive and therefore there is
still hope for you, but YOU have to see the light of God and repent, and
at 81 I'm certain that you have a lot to repent for. I'm only 41 and I
sure had a lot to repent for.

I sincerely pray that you make peace with God before you have to stand
before Him in judgement. I've studied enough scripture to know that is a
horrible fate. Much rather I would hear from Him "Well done thou good
and faithful servant" As it is, unless you change your stated position
of athiesm, you will hear "Depart from me ye that work iniquity, into the
lake that burns with molten sulfer which was prepared for the devil and
his followers."

If you're breathing and able to think, then it's not too late yet.

If your God turns out to exist and I end up at the pearly gates, I will
volunteer to go to hell. No way am I going to spend eternity kissing
the ***** of such a vindictive, caprecious and jealous neurotic.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 30 Jul 2005 03:55:09 PM
goozlefotz wrote:


If your God turns out to exist and I end up at the pearly gates, I will
volunteer to go to hell. No way am I going to spend eternity kissing
the ***** of such a vindictive, caprecious and jealous neurotic.

Hell could be worse :-)
.
User: "Kenn Jazz Booth II"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 31 Jul 2005 01:57:53 AM
wrote:

goozlefotz wrote:


If your God turns out to exist and I end up at the pearly gates, I will
volunteer to go to hell. No way am I going to spend eternity kissing
the ***** of such a vindictive, caprecious and jealous neurotic.


Hell could be worse :-)

Worse than what... being stuck around a big crowd of elitist snobs?
Yeah... I'd take the other hell if that was the price of being in heaven.
but then, I'm a 'not-applicable'... I don't need that particular
crutch to get from day to day...
-- Smoovious
--
_______________________________________________________ _/azz /|/|aster _____
Kenn "Jazz" Booth II The Imperium, VGAP host
mail:
mail:

ICQ : #26588685 IRC : UnderNet #VGAplanets
.





User: "dgillesp"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 26 Jul 2005 02:16:49 PM

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)

Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


2. Why does the Bible teach that goats will have striped offspring if they see stripes when they drink at the watering trough, when this has been discredited by modern genetics?

Because the Bible is not a genetics textbook. It's purpose is not to
rectify genetic misconceptions. Such concerns are incidental to the
real purpose of the Scriptures. It's a book of theology.


3. Why does the Bible record scientifically impossible events as factual?

Because the Bible is not a science textbook and events were recorded by
those of limited factual knowledge. The Bible is a book of theology.


For example, the creation narrative, Noahs deluge, a solid dome over the sky, Earth supported by a foundation. Why has the evangelical church produced "Creation Science" explanations that are complete nonsense? Why is it that none of the more rational reconciliations of science and the Bible survives scrutiny?

Because some Christians like most atheists choose to take a very narrow
and strictly literal view of the Bible, expecting it to be perfect in
every way.


4. How can it be that Psalm 16 and Romans 1 teach that the creation is a reliable means of knowing God ("natural theology"), but the scientific study of biological and geological origins contradicts the creation narrative in Genesis?

Because the Bible is a book of theology. The creation narratives in
Genesis (there are two) tell us that God is the Source and ultimate
meaning of all that exists. It's the task of science to learn "How" God
created it. Genesis explains the "Why" of creation.


Absurd Doctrines

1. Where is the justice in punishing us for Adams sin?

We are not punished for Adam's sin nor are we guilty for it, but we do
inherent from our earliest ancestors the tendency to go wrong.
Otherwise how do we explain man's inhumanity to man? "History is little
more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of
mankind," according to Edward Gibbon. How we deal with our human
darkside is what comes under judgment, for good or ill.
snip

3. How can sacrificing Jesus on behalf of the sinner atone for anothers sin? This would be like killing my child to reconcile for the misbehavior of my neighbors child. I have the capacity simply to forgive and forget without demanding compensation for small offenses. Why cant God do this? Does he simply want blood?

Alienation and distrust of God is itself the offense. How do you relate
to someone who breaks trust with you and has decided you are holding out
on them? As Man (Adam) is wont to do in his relationship with God. God
is not interested in penalties. His object is to reconcile an alienated
humanity and restore the broken relationship. "God was in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself." To assume God wanted satisfaction
for man's rebellion degrades Christ's sacrifice to a mere legalistic
transaction in some court of law. It was infinitely more than that. On
the cross the Almighty bared His heart before the whole world to let us
know how much we mean to Him. Otherwise why does the cross bring first
to Christian minds the love of God instead of a payment of some debt?

4. Why pray? If it changes Gods mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change Gods mind then it is superfluous.

"The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change
the nature of the one who prays." Soren Kierkegaard

5. How can the doctrine of the Trinity possibly be true? Any attempt to make sense of it leads to contradictions. If it is so important, why isnt it clearly taught in the Bible? Why shouldnt an objective student of the doctrine conclude that it was created by the church to hide biblical inconsistencies about the nature of Christ behind a shroud of mystery?

To be a Christian one must "Move beyond either-or thinking and learn to
live with paradox, unanswered questions, inner contradictions."
(Richard Rohr) To the person who insists on a God who can be explained
and understood rationally, the answer is that God refuses to become that
small.

6. Why is God concerned about humans at all? We are less than a speck in the universe. Christianity has the hallmarks of being a religion made by humans for humans.

So size and comparisons really matter? Great treasures never come in
small packages?

7. Why have all the rational arguments for the existence of God been successfully refuted? If God exists, is it unreasonable to suppose that there would be at least one irrefutable proof of his existence?

"God refuses to be known except by love." (John of the Cross) Thus He
is not known by rational argument or irrefutable proof, but only by
love.
Your objections "just keep going and going and going" like the Eveready
plush pink bunny. And if someone should answer every one of them, you
no doubt will create even more. That's all the time I have for this
little exercise in futility.
Denny
--
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"My husband and I divorced over religious differences.
He thought he was God and I didn't." - Many-a-Spouse
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 30 Jul 2005 01:52:47 AM
dgillesp wrote:

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


2. Why does the Bible teach that goats will have striped offspring if they see stripes when they drink at the watering trough, when this has been discredited by modern genetics?


Because the Bible is not a genetics textbook. It's purpose is not to
rectify genetic misconceptions. Such concerns are incidental to the
real purpose of the Scriptures. It's a book of theology.


3. Why does the Bible record scientifically impossible events as factual?


Because the Bible is not a science textbook and events were recorded by
those of limited factual knowledge. The Bible is a book of theology.


For example, the creation narrative, Noahs deluge, a solid dome over the sky, Earth supported by a foundation. Why has the evangelical church produced "Creation Science" explanations that are complete nonsense? Why is it that none of the more rational reconciliations of science and the Bible survives scrutiny?


Because some Christians like most atheists choose to take a very narrow
and strictly literal view of the Bible, expecting it to be perfect in
every way.


4. How can it be that Psalm 16 and Romans 1 teach that the creation is a reliable means of knowing God ("natural theology"), but the scientific study of biological and geological origins contradicts the creation narrative in Genesis?


Because the Bible is a book of theology. The creation narratives in
Genesis (there are two) tell us that God is the Source and ultimate
meaning of all that exists. It's the task of science to learn "How" God
created it. Genesis explains the "Why" of creation.


Absurd Doctrines

1. Where is the justice in punishing us for Adams sin?


We are not punished for Adam's sin nor are we guilty for it, but we do
inherent from our earliest ancestors the tendency to go wrong.
Otherwise how do we explain man's inhumanity to man? "History is little
more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of
mankind," according to Edward Gibbon. How we deal with our human
darkside is what comes under judgment, for good or ill.

snip

3. How can sacrificing Jesus on behalf of the sinner atone for anothers sin? This would be like killing my child to reconcile for the misbehavior of my neighbors child. I have the capacity simply to forgive and forget without demanding compensation for small offenses. Why cant God do this? Does he simply want blood?

Alienation and distrust of God is itself the offense. How do you relate
to someone who breaks trust with you and has decided you are holding out
on them? As Man (Adam) is wont to do in his relationship with God. God
is not interested in penalties. His object is to reconcile an alienated
humanity and restore the broken relationship. "God was in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself." To assume God wanted satisfaction
for man's rebellion degrades Christ's sacrifice to a mere legalistic
transaction in some court of law. It was infinitely more than that. On
the cross the Almighty bared His heart before the whole world to let us
know how much we mean to Him. Otherwise why does the cross bring first
to Christian minds the love of God instead of a payment of some debt?

4. Why pray? If it changes Gods mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change Gods mind then it is superfluous.

"The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change
the nature of the one who prays." Soren Kierkegaard

5. How can the doctrine of the Trinity possibly be true? Any attempt to make sense of it leads to contradictions. If it is so important, why isnt it clearly taught in the Bible? Why shouldnt an objective student of the doctrine conclude that it was created by the church to hide biblical inconsistencies about the nature of Christ behind a shroud of mystery?

To be a Christian one must "Move beyond either-or thinking and learn to
live with paradox, unanswered questions, inner contradictions."
(Richard Rohr) To the person who insists on a God who can be explained
and understood rationally, the answer is that God refuses to become that
small.

6. Why is God concerned about humans at all? We are less than a speck in the universe. Christianity has the hallmarks of being a religion made by humans for humans.

So size and comparisons really matter? Great treasures never come in
small packages?

7. Why have all the rational arguments for the existence of God been successfully refuted? If God exists, is it unreasonable to suppose that there would be at least one irrefutable proof of his existence?


"God refuses to be known except by love." (John of the Cross) Thus He
is not known by rational argument or irrefutable proof, but only by
love.

Your objections "just keep going and going and going" like the Eveready
plush pink bunny. And if someone should answer every one of them, you
no doubt will create even more. That's all the time I have for this
little exercise in futility.

Denny

well Denny ... inquiring minds want to know. and yes ... for every
answer there are many more questions. nothing wrong with that. a
theology book that is often touted as the "Word of God" why would
people not expect the information contained within to be accurate?
oops! another question. pesky things are questions especially when it
comes to "faith" and "dogma".
i find all religious myths interesting and fun to read but none are
more valid as "truth" than another. i can enjoy stories describing of
the antics of Krishna and Yeweh but believe in neither as anything
other than being fantastic fables. will the Bible god consign me to
hell for not believing in the Bible? or will i be reincarnated as
something foul for my lack of faith in the Gita? well, see how it
works? if you believe in one deity you run the risk of being condemned
by another deity so you're pretty much skewed whatever you believe...
thats why i believe in no deity at all ... unless one shows up to let
me know He/She is real and interested in proccuring my worship ... in
the meantime my God concepts remain nebulous. no doubt a Supreme
Intelligence (if there is such a thing) would understand my "wait and
see" attitude.

--
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"My husband and I divorced over religious differences.
He thought he was God and I didn't." - Many-a-Spouse

.
User: ""

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 30 Jul 2005 10:31:33 AM
wrote:>

well Denny ... inquiring minds want to know. and yes ... for every
answer there are many more questions. nothing wrong with that.

Snip for brevity, What question would you like to have an answer to?
One question at a time.
.

User: "Dubh Ghall"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 30 Jul 2005 01:29:22 PM
dgillesp wrote:


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


Okay. So tell us where the theology is.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan

Na bister 500,000
.
User: "Cracklin"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 30 Jul 2005 05:26:48 PM
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:3mhne1d4pof5ger8bvhmrmhvfqtpfu1vj0@4ax.com...

dgillesp wrote:


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.



Okay. So tell us where the theology is.

============================
I think that's where god slaughters the 43 young boys for teasing the old
bald headed man. He used she bears to make their deaths all the more
horrifying and agonizing. It gets worse... read the OT for some of the
bloodiest slaughters this side of Ted Bundy, the WTC attackers......
--
CR......
http://silentlambs.org
www.freeminds.org
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<{{{{{Ò> ~~~~ }<((({ö> ~~~~
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 30 Jul 2005 05:36:21 PM
Cracklin' wrote:

"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:3mhne1d4pof5ger8bvhmrmhvfqtpfu1vj0@4ax.com...

dgillesp wrote:


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.



Okay. So tell us where the theology is.

============================
I think that's where god slaughters the 43 young boys for teasing the old
bald headed man.

And of course, you have no problem with youth teasing old people eh?
.
User: "Kenn Jazz Booth II"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 31 Jul 2005 02:08:06 AM
wrote:

Cracklin' wrote:

"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:3mhne1d4pof5ger8bvhmrmhvfqtpfu1vj0@4ax.com...

dgillesp wrote:


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.

Okay. So tell us where the theology is.


============================
I think that's where god slaughters the 43 young boys for teasing the old
bald headed man.



And of course, you have no problem with youth teasing old people eh?

Why should we? Old people tease youth all the time... what's fair is fair.
-- Smoovious
--
_______________________________________________________ _/azz /|/|aster _____
Kenn "Jazz" Booth II The Imperium, VGAP host
mail:
mail:

ICQ : #26588685 IRC : UnderNet #VGAplanets
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 31 Jul 2005 08:00:45 AM
Kenn 'Jazz' Booth II wrote:



And of course, you have no problem with youth teasing old people eh?


Why should we? Old people tease youth all the time... what's fair is fair.

She bears don't eat old meat.
.
User: "Kenn Jazz Booth II"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 01 Aug 2005 11:21:09 PM
wrote:

Kenn 'Jazz' Booth II wrote:

And of course, you have no problem with youth teasing old people eh?


Why should we? Old people tease youth all the time... what's fair is fair.



She bears don't eat old meat.

Vultures do.
--
_______________________________________________________ _/azz /|/|aster _____
Kenn "Jazz" Booth II The Imperium, VGAP host
mail:
mail:

ICQ : #26588685 IRC : UnderNet #VGAplanets
.



User: "Jos Flachs no x, please"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 31 Jul 2005 06:47:14 AM
On 30 Jul 2005 15:36:21 -0700,
wrote:


Cracklin' wrote:

"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:3mhne1d4pof5ger8bvhmrmhvfqtpfu1vj0@4ax.com...

dgillesp wrote:


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.



Okay. So tell us where the theology is.

============================
I think that's where god slaughters the 43 young boys for teasing the old
bald headed man.


And of course, you have no problem with youth teasing old people eh?

Definitely not. Those young whippersnappers DESERVE the death penalty!
God is good, god is great (and nonexistent).
What other penalty would fit calling someone bald, I ask you?
.





User: "William T. Goat"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 30 Jul 2005 07:46:21 PM
dgillesp wrote:

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.

That's no excuse for *generating* misunderstandings.
If we cannot trust what the Word of God tells us about this world, how
can we trust what it says about the next?
--Billy
.
User: "Cracklin"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 30 Jul 2005 08:29:23 PM
"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1122770781.068673.87870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


dgillesp wrote:

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent
material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows
of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the
edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


That's no excuse for *generating* misunderstandings.

$$ Or fairy tales of talking donkeys and snakes,... or sticks turning into
snakes and crawling away.

If we cannot trust what the Word of God tells us about this world, how
can we trust what it says about the next?

$$ Which god? There thousands of gods out there......
--
CR.........
Reality check: http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
========================================
.
User: "dgillesp"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 31 Jul 2005 07:34:14 PM
Cracklin' wrote:


"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1122770781.068673.87870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


dgillesp wrote:

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent
material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows
of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the
edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


That's no excuse for *generating* misunderstandings.


$$ Or fairy tales of talking donkeys and snakes,... or sticks turning into
snakes and crawling away.

If we cannot trust what the Word of God tells us about this world, how
can we trust what it says about the next?


$$ Which god? There thousands of gods out there......

"the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" - Eph 1.3; Rom 15.6; 2 Cor
1.3 & 11.31; 1 Thess 3.11
That pretty well identifies the God in the Bible.
Denny
--
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"My husband and I divorced over religious differences.
He thought he was God and I didn't." - Minny A. Spouse
.
User: "thomas p"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 01 Aug 2005 01:12:50 AM
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:34:14 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:



Cracklin' wrote:


"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1122770781.068673.87870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


dgillesp wrote:

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent
material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows
of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the
edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


That's no excuse for *generating* misunderstandings.


$$ Or fairy tales of talking donkeys and snakes,... or sticks turning into
snakes and crawling away.

If we cannot trust what the Word of God tells us about this world, how
can we trust what it says about the next?


$$ Which god? There thousands of gods out there......


"the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" - Eph 1.3; Rom 15.6; 2 Cor
1.3 & 11.31; 1 Thess 3.11
That pretty well identifies the God in the Bible.

Yes, but it doesn't answer the question - not that anyone expected an
answer.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.



User: "dgillesp"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 31 Jul 2005 07:42:27 PM
"William T. Goat" wrote:


dgillesp wrote:

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


That's no excuse for *generating* misunderstandings.

It didn't generate misunderstandings, it only reflected common notions
and
misconceptions of the times in which it was written.


If we cannot trust what the Word of God tells us about this world, how
can we trust what it says about the next?

God is more than able to use an imperfect book to reveal Himself in the
life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to whom it bears
witness. Our faith is not to be built on a perfect book, but on Christ
alone. Christianity stands or falls with Christ, not with some notion
of and infallible and perfect book. "For no other foundation can any
one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor 3.11

--Billy

Denny
--
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"My husband and I divorced over religious differences.
He thought he was God and I didn't." - Minny A. Spouse
.
User: "thomas p"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 01 Aug 2005 01:12:52 AM
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:42:27 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:



"William T. Goat" wrote:


dgillesp wrote:

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


That's no excuse for *generating* misunderstandings.


It didn't generate misunderstandings, it only reflected common notions
and
misconceptions of the times in which it was written.


If we cannot trust what the Word of God tells us about this world, how
can we trust what it says about the next?


God is more than able to use an imperfect book to reveal Himself in the
life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to whom it bears
witness. Our faith is not to be built on a perfect book, but on Christ
alone. Christianity stands or falls with Christ, not with some notion
of and infallible and perfect book. "For no other foundation can any
one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor 3.11

I see, you are depending on advice from an imperfect book; and that is
your way of avoiding depending on an imperfect book.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.
User: ""

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 01 Aug 2005 04:36:25 PM
thomas p wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:42:27 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:



"William T. Goat" wrote:


dgillesp wrote:

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


That's no excuse for *generating* misunderstandings.


It didn't generate misunderstandings, it only reflected common notions
and
misconceptions of the times in which it was written.


If we cannot trust what the Word of God tells us about this world, how
can we trust what it says about the next?


God is more than able to use an imperfect book to reveal Himself in the
life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to whom it bears
witness. Our faith is not to be built on a perfect book, but on Christ
alone. Christianity stands or falls with Christ, not with some notion
of and infallible and perfect book. "For no other foundation can any
one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor 3.11


I see, you are depending on advice from an imperfect book; and that is
your way of avoiding depending on an imperfect book.



Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

that IS strange. isnt it? a perfect and supreme being revealing
"himself" thru the pages of an imperfect book and apparently expecting
mere humans to recognize "The Truth" despite the noticing of all the
mistakes and inaccuracies. and ya gotta have faith that "The Truth" is
in amongst all the primitive misconceptions or be consigned to eternal
torture. yeppers. makes sense to me.
.
User: "Libertarius"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 02 Aug 2005 11:17:55 AM
wrote:

thomas p wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:42:27 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:



"William T. Goat" wrote:


dgillesp wrote:

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


That's no excuse for *generating* misunderstandings.


It didn't generate misunderstandings, it only reflected common notions
and
misconceptions of the times in which it was written.


If we cannot trust what the Word of God tells us about this world, how
can we trust what it says about the next?


God is more than able to use an imperfect book to reveal Himself in the
life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to whom it bears
witness. Our faith is not to be built on a perfect book, but on Christ
alone. Christianity stands or falls with Christ, not with some notion
of and infallible and perfect book. "For no other foundation can any
one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor 3.11


I see, you are depending on advice from an imperfect book; and that is
your way of avoiding depending on an imperfect book.



Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)


that IS strange. isnt it? a perfect and supreme being revealing
"himself" thru the pages of an imperfect book and apparently expecting
mere humans to recognize "The Truth" despite the noticing of all the
mistakes and inaccuracies. and ya gotta have faith that "The Truth" is
in amongst all the primitive misconceptions or be consigned to eternal
torture. yeppers. makes sense to me.

===>Calling a Big Lie "the truth" does n ot make it so! ;-)
.



User: "William T. Goat"

Title: Re: Bible Conflicts with Science 02 Aug 2005 10:36:14 PM
dgillesp wrote:

"William T. Goat" wrote:


dgillesp wrote:

i think you like thios one.

1. Why does the Bible teach that the sky is a solid dome of transparent material with water above it?14 (The water poured through the "windows of heaven" to cause Noahs flood, and then presumably poured off the edge of the disk-shaped earth into the abyss.)


Because the Bible is not a textbook for cosmology, meteorology, physics,
chemistry, etal. It's purpose is not to correct misunderstandings with
regard to such subjects. It is a book of theology.


That's no excuse for *generating* misunderstandings.


It didn't generate misunderstandings, it only reflected common notions
and
misconceptions of the times in which it was written.

It's generating those misunderstandings anew today, for people who fear
science.

If we cannot trust what the Word of God tells us about this world, how
can we trust what it says about the next?


God is more than able to use an imperfect book to reveal Himself in the
life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to whom it bears
witness. Our faith is not to be built on a perfect book, but on Christ
alone. Christianity stands or falls with Christ, not with some notion
of and infallible and perfect book. "For no other foundation can any
one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor 3.11

But your faith does rest on the book alone, because you know no Christ
without the book. You even quoted the book just now, to support your
faith! Your faith is built on a Christ you've only read about, never
met. Calling that a personal relationship would be a bit of a stretch.
--Billy
.





  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER